Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul Perrone's avatar

Yup…you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Morals - or more accurately ethics - to be lasting must be based on truth. If it’s just a theoretical “good” for society, then when trials or temptations come people will abandon those ethics. Jesus’ disciples suffered and died because they knew He had risen from the dead and conquered death. Without the fear of death they became bold because of this truth. Today as a society we live without this truth and live in fear of man and nature (e.g., COVID). My guess is that Brooks doesn’t want to talk about this is that he doesn’t believe in the uncomfortable truths revealed in Scripture such as the perversion of homosexuality, trangenderism, and legalized infanticide.

Expand full comment
UGA Oldtimer's avatar

I believe I read somewhere in one of Richard Posner's books his statement to the effect that no moral system can provide within itself any reason why a person should abide by the moral tenets of the system, or words to that effect. The compulsion must come from outside the moral system. Of course, as a Christian I already knew this. I was then a little puzzled and amused as he attempted to describe coherent moral/legal principles without God or external force. Brooks is like that in his writings--it's just mumbo jumbo designed to fool the masses, I suppose so he and those like him can live comfortably and not under the threat from the masses that Freud saw.

It's even worse. Brooks, Posner and those other upper class (whether by birth, achievement, luck, marriage, or whatever) fail in their duty to those of us lower-positioned in society by not furnishing an example of how we should live--and that means with full recognition of faith and Christian practices. Without these Brooks is just tiresome.

Back in the olden days, at the ol' partyin' ground, a fellow on my floor of the dormitory was an early heavy marijuana user/advocate, hippy type, anti-establishment dope-using kind of guy. He built up a following among others, and by our final year they were zonked most of the time and useless. Many years later I saw an article about him in the paper. Turns out his family was very wealthy from way back, and he had a desk and position in the family firm. I don't think those he influenced into zonkdom who were not so well-positioned ahead of time fared quite so well.

Those at the top have avoided their duty. A little dope now and then may not hurt their life prospects, but it can lead to the destruction of those of the people beneath them.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts